Kalmanovitz

Kalmanovitz v. Bitting

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 202·43 Cal. App. 4th 311·50 Cal. Rptr. 2d 332·96 Daily Journal DAR 2699·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1634
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 6, 1996A068503California1,626 words

Opinion

Opinion

Corrigan, J.

William Bitting, acting as temporary special administrator and proposed executor of the estate of Lydia Kalmanovitz, appeals from the trial court’s orders granting summary judgment for plaintiffs (hereafter claimants) as third party beneficiaries of a will agreement between Lydia Kalmanovitz and her predeceased husband. Bitting contends: (1) the trial court misinterpreted the meaning of the will agreement, and (2) claimants may not enforce the will agreement because they were not intended third party beneficiaries of that agreement. Our resolution of the second claim obviates the need to consider the first. We reverse and remand.

Factual and Procedural Background

Lydia and Paul Kalmanovitz were the sole owners of S & P Company. In October 1986, when they asked their attorney to prepare their wills, their combined assets were worth approximately $480 million. They had no children and wished to leave everything to each other and then to charity upon the death of the survivor. Addressing their concern about estate taxes, their attorney, Bitting, suggested they use a will agreement binding the survivor to leave everything to a charitable foundation. They also discussed…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.